UK Pupaid Anti Puppy (and Kitten) Farming Petition

This is something I feel very strongly about, and so I’m using this weeks post to highlight the brilliant Marc Abraham and Pupaid, and the petition calling to ban the sale of puppies and kittens from anywhere but the home of a responsible breeder.

I won’t say much more on the matter, or post any photos, but will let the petition text speak for itself:

Ban the sale of young puppies & kittens without their mothers being present

Puppies & kittens mass produced in horrific puppy/kitten farms are separated from their mothers too early, transported long distances & sold via pet shops, newspaper ads, websites & private dealers.

These puppies/kittens suffer: –
* Impaired immune systems
* Painful diseases requiring costly treatment
* Shorter life spans
* Poor socialisation leading to behavioural issues

Prospective owners should always: –
* Ask “Where’s Mum?”
* Insist on seeing puppy/kitten & mother interacting
* Be aware of scams e.g. fake/no mother present

The only exceptions are rescue animals that have been orphaned/abandoned.

We, the undersigned, call on the Government to ban the sale of young puppies/kittens unless their mothers are present.

We ask for urgent action to raise awareness & encourage the public to choose a responsibly bred puppy/kitten at least 8 weeks old, or adopt from a legitimate rescue organisation.

The Government must end the cruel practice of puppy/kitten farming in the UK.

Sign the petition:

You can also follow @pupaid on Twitter


Compulsory Microchipping

A microchip

So the UK government has decided to introduce compulsory microchipping of dogs.  It’s supposed to enable those owners who’s dogs bite or attack people to be more easily prosecuted.  However, the law isn’t to be implemented until 2016.

The government haven’t gone so far as to introduce a link between the details held on the database for a particular microchip proving ownership of the dog who that chip is implanted within.  They also haven’t looked at any way of linking the current microchip provider’s separate databases together.

They have – however – stealthily added an extension to the current ‘Dangerous Dogs Act (1991)’ (DDA), to include dogs who are “dangerously out of control” on private property e.g. at owner’s home, or other houses (importantly, excluded from this addition are bites to intruders/burglars).

So far, so good – or is it?

To responsible owners, like myself, it makes little difference.  My dogs are already permanently identified by a microchip (which, importantly, is kept up to date), as well as wearing a collar and tag 100% of the time in public, and 99% of the time at home (just in case, not because of paranoia – honest!).

As they both can be anxious around strangers, there’s baby gates to restrict their access to both the front and back doors, and if someone ‘new’ were to require access to the house, Inka and Starr are crated, or put in another room – whichever’s most appropriate for the situation.

However, I know of a least one person who is publicly against microchipping, due to the belief that the chips are linked to or cause cancer in dogs.  Tina Humphrey (of ‘Tina & Chandi’ fame) says “Enough with the ‘responsible dog owners already have their dogs chipped’!  I am responsible but chose to NOT subject my dogs to medical procedures that carry health risks.  Instead I supervise my dog 24 hours per day, have up-to-date info on a collar and tag.  It is possible to be ‘responsible’ and not risk your dog’s health by implanting a foreign body!”.

There’s been no indication from the government that another permanent form of identification might be allowed, such as tattooing.

And as for the extension of the DDA onto private property?  I think many responsible dog owners may choose to have a few less visitors to their homes, especially “non-doggy” people.  The reason?  The current, extremely subjective, wording of the DDA.

This quote, as taken from the Blue Cross website, goes some way to explain the problem (emphasis is mine): –

“Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act is not breed specific, and applies to all dogs regardless of breed or breed-type.  Section 3 makes it an offence for any dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place.  Dangerously out of control has been defined in law as “Any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that a dog will injure any person”.  This means that a dog could be considered dangerous even if it does not actually injure anyone.  If a person believes that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the dog could injure them then charges can be brought.

It is that simple – if someone thinks your dog might injure them, you can be charged under the DDA.  For instance, let’s take Joe.  Joe doesn’t like dogs, and is a little bit afraid of what he calls “big” dogs – those that are about Spaniel-sized or bigger.  I’m walking Inka & Starr down the street towards Joe.  Inka’s closest to him, and as we walk past Joe, Inka moves towards him a little to take a sniff of his hands (Joe’s recently finished eating a sandwich).  Now remember, Joe doesn’t like “big” dogs, and thinks Inka – who’s about 22″ at his shoulders – is huge.  He sees Inka moving towards him, and panics, clearly Inka’s out of control and is going to rip his arm off!


Sneaking in of extension of DDA to include private property. Laughable, as the definition of “attack” is dependant upon the feelings of the “victim”, so someone who doesn’t like or is afraid of dogs could see something as the dog moving closer to sniff them as an attack. Additionally, look at the number of dog owners who misinterpret their own dogs body language and/or behaviour – barking as being aggressive; playing as fighting; not doing as requested as trying to be dominant..

Considering that many dog owners seemingly understand little of canine behaviour and communication, and many misinterpretations are made – dogs who don’t do as asked are dominant or stubborn, two dogs playing together is seen as them fighting, a barking dog is obviously aggressive.  How can we then expect the non-dog owners in the UK to correctly interpret the actions of any given dog, especially one on his home territory who may not be used to visitors?  Even when in their crates, both of my dogs will bark at anyone knocking on the door, or getting too close to them – I now have to consider that this behaviour, from 2016, could mean I get taken to court.

While I applaud the government for realising that something needs to be done, it seems to me that this is a knee-jerk reaction, similar to the original implementation of the DDA.  It seems to have been brought about by people who know little, understand less, and are reluctant to take on board the views of those who know and understand more, let alone other countries where this has been tried.

Northern Ireland being a close example.  Although compulsory microchipping has been in place for less than twelve months (see here and here), from following just the Mutts Anonymous Dog Rescue (MADRA) page on Facebook, I see just how many strays can be found in that one area of Ireland.  Not to mention that Starr was an Irish stray, as were several of my friend’s dogs before they found their new homes.  I know Starr wasn’t microchipped until she arrived in England, and I doubt that any of the other “expats” had microchips either.

Let’s be realistic for a minute:many dog owners in the UK currently flout the laws they should be following (dogs being on leash when near a road, poop-scooping, and dogs wearing a collar with an up-to-date ID tag with the name and address of the owner to name just three!), and nothing is ever done about them.  Nobody’s fined, nobody’s taken to court.  Nothing!

Until somebody can do something about these, basic, simple rules (let alone welfare rules which are frequently ignored by everyone from ‘regular’ dog owners to puppy farmers), then I think it’s unrealistic to expect that anybody is really going to care whether every dog is microchipped, and/or randomly check dogs on the street and issue fines for those dogs who aren’t chipped.  Not to mention that vets will not be routinely scanning new patients – for fear of causing embarrassment


coldwetnose: Up a Gumtree with a load of Staffies

Let’s get pet ads off Gumtree.

Pet ownership is not a right, it’s a privilege, and one that has big responsibilities at that.  To own a pet is to provide and care for another life, for it’s entire life: it will need food; water; shelter; medical care; physical and mental exercise.  Many pets will also need trained, this must be done with understanding and kindness if a lasting bond is to be built.

Gumtree are undermining all of this – it needs stopped, and it needs stopped now.

Posted from WordPress for Android

Very Quick, Sad, Slightly Off-Topic Update

I’ve heard about the recent deaths of two police dogs, under the care of their handler, who had previously “forgotten” about a dog in his care which he had also left in his car.  There are many stories on the internet, here is just one of them.  They all seem to concur that it was an adult dog and a puppy that have died, though some stories say they were found dead at the scene, and others say they both died after being taken to a veterinary hospital.

Beverly Cuddy, editor of Dogs Today magazine, has written a blog post, and I for one will certainly be keeping my eye out for an advert, leaflet, website, window sticker, or anything else that can be used to educate fellow dog lovers.

Dogs die in hot cars, but it doesn’t even have to be a particularly hot day, and it doesn’t matter if you leave the windows open and/or a bowl of water – these will not make a difference.

In the UK: if you see a dog locked in a car, you can call the local police, who I believe are able to use force to free the dog from the car; or you can call the RSPCA (0870 55 55 999).